Moonwalk was a massive pirate streaming operation that offered tens of thousands of pirated movies and TV-shows to more than 100 million end-users.

Despite its size, it was largely unknown to the public at large. It wasn’t a classic streaming piracy site. Instead, it operated as a middleman, offering a library of pirated content to hundreds of pirate sites that could embed their videos for free.

This activity wasn’t apparent to the casual pirate site user, but anti-piracy groups were well aware of it. After carefully researching the operation, the Motion Picture Association, together with Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, took action last fall.

The two industry groups did so by going after the hosting companies. In October, BREIN and MPA obtained ex-parte orders from a Dutch Court ordering three local hosting providers to disconnect Moonwalk’s servers while preserving essential evidence.

This did indeed happen, and from one day to the next, hundreds of pirate sites lost access to their video host. While several of these eventually returned, BREIN and the MPA believe that 25 streaming sites ceased operating permanently.

Despite this success, the BREIN and MPA have yet to identify the operators. In addition, they also want access to any evidence that can help them to investigate the case further, including information on the 283 streaming sites that used Moonwalk.

The two groups tried to get this information from the hosting providers in question: Serverius, Worldstream, and YISP. While the hosts helped to take Moonwalk offline in response to the ex-parte court order, further cooperation was reportedly lacking.

“[T]he providers have not or not fully complied with the requested delivery of identifying company data. In cases where data were provided, these were found to be false or not traceable,” BREIN notes.

In an attempt to legally oblige the three hosting companies to share more evidence and act more diligently going forward, BREIN and the MPA are taking them to court in the Netherlands.

“BREIN is now progressing in a collective action, including the continuation of the closure and inspection of the seized documents with company data,” the group writes.

The legal paperwork provides a detailed overview of the case including Moonwalk’s infrastructure. Among other things, BREIN and the MPA retained the forensic anti-piracy services of NAGRA, to see how and where it operated from.

This led to a list of IP-addresses, which were connected to the three hosting companies. The majority were linked to Worldstream and YISP, while ten IP-addresses were hosted at Serverius, through two resellers.

Serverius has handed over some data but doesn’t want to press their resellers for further information. YISP has also shared some details but is generally reluctant to share more evidence. Worldstream, for its part, categorically refuses to hand over customer details over privacy concerns.

Through their legal action, BREIN and the MPA are requesting an order to compel Worldstream and YISP to share all seized material and information relating to Moonwalk and its customers. In addition, the anti-piracy groups seek an order requiring the hosting companies to keep Moonwalk offline.

The copyright holder groups also want to confirm what the obligations of third-party services are when it comes to alleged copyright infringements. Among other things, to clarify what information they have to share.

“BREIN also requests a declaration of justice with regard to a number of obligations with regard to the enforcement of intellectual property law. On the one hand because of the refusal of the defendants to voluntarily provide relevant company data and on the other hand because of their structural failure to take adequate measures to have reliable data,” the request reads.

The need for accurate information is exemplified in the Moonwalk case. For example, YISP did share some personal details of Russian residents who were supposedly linked to Moonwalk, but these turned out to be false.

BREIN sent investigators to Russia and found that one address pointed to a jobless man in an apartment complex. This man was not technically skilled and the sole computer he owns is only used by his wife. Another lead identified a woman in Kyiv, who had no clue about Moonwalk either.

In the grander scheme, the present legal action aims to set clear guidelines on what type of information hosting companies should collect and share. Ideally, hosting companies should make sure that their customers are all verified.

“BREIN intends to encourage defendants and comparable hosting providers to provide BREIN exclusively with verified company data of their customers and to set up their administration, general terms and conditions and company policy accordingly,” the anti-piracy outfit writes.

The current case is expected to have a broader impact on other Dutch and European hosting companies. BREIN and the MPA aren’t shying away from a thorough legal battle that could go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and they also note that the EU Court of Justice may have to weigh in on some issues.

As such, this lawsuit is about much more than Moonwalk alone. While the pirate CDN is an immediate target, future rulings could set the tone for copyright enforcement measures in the years to come.

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

For many content creators of YouTube, copyright strikes are a major problem.

When users receive three ‘strikes’, YouTube can remove all videos, take down the channel permanently, and prevent the creator from making any new ones.

This is a significant threat for those who make a decent living off the video platform including Erik Mishiyev, aka DJ Short-E, who ran two popular YouTube channels totaling over 250,000 subscribers.

This achievement earned him a “Silver Creator Award” and generated $310,000 in revenue over a period of five years. However, Mishiyev’s relationship with the video platform was far from rosy.

Despite having over a quarter million subscribers, the DJ felt that the views of his videos were low when compared to similar channels. When some subscribers informed him that they received no alerts for new uploads, Mishiyev contacted YouTube support.

This inquiry didn’t go well and ultimately resulted in the creator supposedly threatening to take legal action against the video giant. Soon after that happened, he reported being bombarded by copyright takedowns and strikes, which effectively shut down his channels.

Mishiyev believes that these takedowns were retaliation for his legal threats. And when YouTube chose not to accept his DMCA counter-notices – which he sent in an attempt to get rid of the strikes – he took YouTube to court.

In a complaint filed at a federal court in California last summer, the YouTuber demanded $720,000 in compensation for lost income, among other things. In addition, he wanted to prevent YouTube from ever banning him again.

At the center of the lawsuit is a breach of contract claim. Mishiyev argued that YouTube failed to live up to its duties as it failed to process his DMCA counter-notices, a point contested by the video giant.

In a response filed a few weeks ago, YouTube noted that its Terms of Service allows the company to remove any content “without prior notice” and “in its sole discretion.” This agreement allows the company not to restore a video following a copyright claim, even when it is challenged.

“YouTube has no obligation to ever restore that material to its service, even when a user protests, and the agreement expressly highlights its discretion not to do so,” YouTube informed the court.

In other words, YouTube doesn’t have to restore content after it receives a counter-notice. It can simply ignore it, based on the agreed terms of service.

This is also the conclusion reached by the court. In an order released last month, US District Court Judge William Alsup notes that users are given the opportunity to submit counter-notifications but Google is not required to act on them.

“[O]nce a user submitted a counter-notice, the agreement reserved to YouTube’s sole discretion the decision to take any further action, including whether to restore the videos or even to send the counternotice to the purported copyright owner,” Judge Alsup wrote.

“Thus, YouTube did not agree to act as a neutral processor of notices and counter-notices. YouTube retained control to evaluate counter-notices and infringement on its own.”

Mishiyev didn’t go into detail on what grounds the notices were inaccurate. The main claim was that the videos were ‘struck’ by YouTube as retaliation. However, even if that’s true, YouTube is still not in the wrong for terminating the account.

“Even taking the retaliation allegations as true, however, the complaint fails to overcome YouTube’s express right to terminate plaintiff’s account for repeat copyright infringement,” Judge Alsup notes.

Based on these and several other arguments, the Judge granted YouTube’s request to dismiss the complaint. While that’s good news for the video service, the legal battle isn’t completely over yet.

As highlighted by Reclaim The Net, Mishiyev, aka DJ Short-E, has appealed the decision at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

—

Here is a copy of US District Court Judge William Alsup’s order to dismiss Mishiyev’s complaint against YouTube..

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

People who regularly download movies and TV shows can do so with relative ease. Content is ripped at source by release groups and placed online with all protections removed. For video games pirates, things are more complex.

Setting aside the often massive downloads and hours of unpacking, games then need to be ‘cracked’ which for the absolute novice user can be daunting, even when the necessary tools are provided. As a result, communities of video games pirates have thrived over the years, helping people to gain the knowledge required and, of course, share the latest games.

Probably the largest in existence anywhere is Russia-based CS.RIN.RU, otherwise known as the Steam Underground Community. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the site isn’t really underground and can be viewed by anyone with a web browser. However, to gain access to the juicy stuff (links to many thousands of pirated games and the necessary cracks), users need to sign up. Huge numbers have.

How many sign-in on a regular basis is unclear but the forum has in excess of 560,000 registered users and is the go-to platform for the latest releases. The site is hard moderated with staff mostly intolerant of anyone not sticking to the rules. As a result, however, it’s a valued source of titles sporting some of the most knowledgable video game pirates around.

According to an announcement this morning, however, CS.RIN.RU is now entering unchartered waters. An administrator has revealed that after being sponsored for the last 17 years by the owner of Russian Information Network (RIN), a site dedicated to news and events in Russia, he can no longer afford to financially support the world’s largest games piracy forum.

“Around this time last year, we moved to a new server so that the RIN owner could continue to afford hosting us and for various technical improvements. I have recently learned that he can no longer afford to renew our server’s subscription. Unfortunately, this was bound to happen sooner or later,” the announcement reads.

“Due to our performance and security requirements, it is not possible to host this forum at just any provider or on anything less than a full dedicated server. In fact, our current dedicated server that was rented on a tight budget is already at its limits and significant efforts were put in to make it work. We will be moving to a new server at the beginning of May.”

While the move to new hardware appears certain, things will have to change moving forward. CS.RIN.RU’s operators say that if the users want to keep the site online, they will have to cough up the money.

“We, the staff, have put great thought into figuring out how to keep this forum online. Sadly, we have determined that we will not be able to finance the kind of hosting this forum requires by ourselves, even with the crappiest, bare-minimum server we could find. This means that come June, we have to rely on donations from you, the community,” the statement continues.

“This is a significant announcement and we know that some of you will not agree with this step and truth be told, we don’t want to have ask this either, but we see no other way.”

The operators of CS.RIN.RU aren’t asking for much. In fact, they estimate the overall costs to be around 1,200 euros per year to keep the community intact. However, like many piracy-focused sites that rely on donations, the big issue is how to receive that money from members without compromising the security of the people accepting the funds. As a result, cryptocurrency is the only available option.

It’s doubtful that this will cause too many problems for the site but it will almost certainly reduce the number of donations from willing parties. Despite being able to successfully download games and cracks, some users seem reluctant to learn about cryptocurrency, even though they have the money to donate. However, world-famous repacker FitGirl thinks that it shouldn’t be a problem and is preparing to contribute.

“People who still relies [sic] on fiat seem very strange to me. I’m using crypto for all my warez needs for YEARS. Not a single cent from my banks ever touched my hoster, my seedbox, my VPN. All is paid in crypto,” the piracy star wrote this morning.

“It’s just as complex as PayPal in 2020. Once you setup it, it’s sooooooo easy to make payments and accept donations (in my case). Hope we will gather needed amount, will chip my part later today.”

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

Legal battles between copyright holders and Internet providers are not new. In most countries these disputes revolve around site blocking but, in the US, a different trend has emerged.

Over the past years, several major ISPs have been sued for failing to terminate accounts of alleged repeat infringers.

These lawsuits are serious business. Late last year, for example, Cox was found guilty by a jury that awarded a billion dollars in damages. While the judgment is being appealed, other ISPs are on high alert.

This is also true for Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US. The company was sued last year by several major music companies, including Capitol Records, Warner Bros, and Sony Music, which argued that the ISP is liable for pirating subscribers.

Last month Charter replied to the record labels’ complaint. In addition to denying many of the allegations, the ISP also went on the offensive. Charter submitted a counterclaim accusing the labels of sending inaccurate DMCA takedown notices.

The claim comes after the music companies removed 272 sound recordings and 183 music compositions from their initial complaint. These were dropped after the record labels were ordered to produce further evidence that they indeed owned the rights.

Charter believes that the companies have sent many inaccurate takedown notices in the past. These notices reportedly cause damage to the ISP, which says it incurred costs and reputational damage by forwarding the “false accusations.”

“Charter is injured when it processes inaccurate notices, causing it to forward false accusations to its subscribers, to the extent this creates tension with the impacted subscribers, negatively affects goodwill, and causes reputational harm to Charter,” the counterclaim reads.

This could be a serious problem, especially since some of the claimed works were also used to calculate the damages in the Cox trial. However, the music companies now argue that the allegations don’t hold water and they, therefore, ask the court to dismiss the counterclaim.

In a reply, received last week by the US District Court in Denver, Colorado, the music companies point out that under the DMCA, misrepresentation claims only hold up if the receiving party removed or disabled access to the infringing content.

In this case, Charter didn’t. The ISP went on the record stating that it could not remove any content, or stop users from sharing any files.

“Here, Charter does not allege that it removed or disabled access to any infringing material or activity identified in Plaintiffs’ notices. In fact, Charter concedes that it cannot remove infringing content, nor restrict its users’ access to it. Thus, no amendment could cure the deficiency, and the claim should be dismissed with prejudice,” the labels write.

In addition, the labels point out that the ISP failed to state a claim. While mistakes may have happened while sending takedown notices, Charter has no evidence showing that the labels had “actual knowledge” of any misrepresentations, they counter.

“Charter’s claim is based entirely on speculation arising from Plaintiffs’ decision in February 2020 to drop from this suit a few hundred of more than 11,400 copyrighted works included in their original complaint.

“Charter also has not identified any material misrepresentation or a single infringement notice that it claims was inaccurate, as required,” the labels add.

Finally, the music companies point out that the DMCA’s three-year statute of limitations has expired for Charter’s claims. The notices at issue were sent nearly four years ago, they point out.

Based on these arguments, the labels ask the court to dismiss the ISP’s counterclaim. On top of that, they also want Charter’s request for a declaratory judgment on contributory liability dismissed.

Both requests are now with the court which, in due course, will decide if Charter can move ahead with its case or if it will be tossed out.

—

Here is a copy of the record labels’ reply with the dismissal requests (pdf).

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

On first view, making books, learning and other research materials available online during a nationwide library shutdown as a result of the coronavirus pandemic seems like a positive step. However, the National Emergency Library recently launched by the Internet Archive now finds itself in the middle of a controvery.

The National Emergency Library, which contains around 1.4 million scanned books, is free for everyone to access. Available until at least the end of June 2020, the library has effectively suspended wait-lists, which allows lenders to obtain books on a temporary basis but without having to wait until other readers have finished reading their copies.

However, copyright holders, authors groups and publishers have criticized the move, claiming that without remuneration for creators, the library acts as a glorified pirate site.

The Authors Guild, for example, described the move as “appalling”, slamming the initiative as pushing the boundaries of copyright law while trampling on the rights of struggling authors. The Copyright Alliance went further still, describing the project as “particularly vile“.

With pressure mounting, the government has now become involved. In a letter to Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, Senator Thom Tillis – whose Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property is currently conducting a review of the Copyright Act – says he recognizes the essential nature of books and the problems being encountered as a result of the coronavirus lockdown.

Citing various measures taken by copyright holders to “ease the struggles”, he highlights that these, however, do not break the law.

“These voluntary efforts should be commended, not only because they are expanding access to copyrighted works, but also because they do not violate copyright law or harm creators. On the contrary, these times have shown the critical value of copyrighted works to the public interest,” Senator Tillis writes.

Noting that he “deeply values access to copyrighted works,” the Senator insists that such access should be provided within the law. He stops short of citing any specific laws that the Internet Archive is supposedly breaking but suggests that the National Emergency Library is illegal nonetheless.

“I am not aware of any measure under copyright law that permits a user of copyrighted works to unilaterally create an emergency copyright act. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that your ‘library’ is operating outside the boundaries of the copyright law that Congress has enacted and alone has jurisdiction to amend,” he adds.

There are no overt threats in the letter, which may suggest that the Senator is hoping for an amicable agreement, perhaps by reverting the library to its original status with lending limits returned to normal and other copyright matters solved. However, Kahle doesn’t seem particularly interested in a compromise.

He insists that the National Emergency Library is not only essential in a time of national crisis, but is also acting well within the confines of existing copyright legislation.

“The National Emergency Library was developed to address a temporary and significant need to our communities – for the first time in our nation’s history, the entire physical library system is offline and unavailable,” Kahle informs the Senator.

“Your constituents have paid for millions of books they currently cannot access. According to National Public Library survey data from 2018-2019, North Carolina’s public libraries house more than fifteen million print book volumes in their hundred twenty-three branches across the State. Because those branches are now closed and their books are unavailable, the massive public investment paid by tax-paying citizens is unavailable to the very people who funded it.”

This specific example, Kahle notes, is echoed around the nation, affecting public, school, college and academic libraries alike. The National Emergency Library, he contends, aims to provide a solution by enabling teachers, students and communities to access the learning material currently out of reach.

Kahle also provides some lending statistics, indicating that 90% of the books borrowed thus far were published more than 10 years ago and two-thirds were published last century. Overall, he states, the volume of lending to date is comparable “to that of a town with 30,000 people”, with 90% returning books after reading them for just 30 mins.

“These usage patterns suggest that perhaps that patrons may be using the checked-out books for fact checking or research, but we suspect a large number of people are browsing the book in a way similar to browsing library shelves,” he adds.

Kahle insists that the library isn’t offering any recently published books and any authors who prefer not to have their books made available can ask the library to have them removed. This, he stresses, does not have to be via a formal DMCA notice but a plain request not to have their works included. He then addresses the issue of legality, in particular the Senator’s claim that the library has somehow enacted its own emergency legislation.

“You raise the question of how this comports with copyright law,” Kahle writes. “Fortunately, we do not need an ’emergency Copyright Act’ because the fair use doctrine, codified in the Copyright Act, provides flexibility to libraries and others to adjust to changing circumstances. As a result, libraries can and are meeting the needs of their patrons during this crisis in a number of ways.”

Kahle concludes by acknowledging that in their “haste” to respond to the urgent needs of teachers, students, and librarians, the project did not do enough to engage with authors, publishers and policymakers. However, he claims that those conversations are now underway and invites the Senator to contribute by addressing the urgent access needs of the country.

The letter from Senator Tillis and response from Internet Archive can be found here and here

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.